Survey: Economic ills may defy next president

Aa lone man wearing a rain pouch walks past the White House in Washington D.C., on Monday during the approach of Hurricane Sandy. Whoever wins the U.S. presidential election will likely struggle to manage the biggest economic threats he'll face. That's the cautionary message that emerges from the latest Associated Press Economy Survey

That's the cautionary message that emerges from the latest Associated Press Economy Survey.

Europe's recession will persist deep into the next presidential term, according to a majority of the 31 economists who responded to the survey. A weaker European economy would shrink demand for U.S. exports and cost U.S. jobs. Yet there's little the next president can do about it.

An even more urgent threat to the U.S. economy, the economists say, is Congress' failure so far to reach a deal to prevent tax increases and spending cuts from taking effect next year and possibly triggering another recession. Yet as President Barack Obama has found, the White House can't force a congressional accord.

And whether Obama or his Republican challenger Mitt Romney wins Nov. 6, he'll likely have to deal with one chamber of Congress led by the opposing party. Polls suggest the Senate will remain in Democratic hands after the election and the House in Republican control.

"It's not like there's a clean slate for someone to do what they want," says Joshua Shapiro, chief economist at MFR Inc.

Still, there are some ways in which the economists think the White House will be able to drive the economy.

The next president, for example, could help lift growth and reduce unemployment by backing lower individual and corporate taxes and looser business rules, more than 70 percent of the economists say. They think such policies — the core of Romney's economic message — would be more likely to help than would Obama's plans for more spending on public works and targeted tax breaks for businesses.

Only about one in five of the economists say Obama's policies would be more likely to help spur growth and reduce unemployment.

The economists were surveyed before the government estimated Friday that the economy grew at an annual rate of 2 percent in the July-September quarter — too slowly to spur rapid job growth. On Friday, four days before Election Day, the government will issue the jobs report for October.

The AP survey collected the views of private, corporate and academic economists on a range of issues. Among their views:

— The U.S. economy and job creation will remain weak the rest of this year but should pick up slightly in 2013. The economy will expand at a 1.9 percent annual pace in the second half of 2012, little changed from the first half. Next year, they think growth should amount to 2.3 percent, enough to boost hiring slightly.

— Americans' average pay will trail inflation over the next three years, as it has for the past three, a slight majority of the economists say. The tight job market means many employers feel little pressure to raise pay. And rising prices for food and gas could swell inflation and reduce purchasing power.

— Lack of customer demand is most responsible for weak U.S. job growth, slightly more than half the economists say. Fewer than half say a bigger factor is a shortage of skilled workers or employer uncertainty about future taxes or regulations.

— The $1 trillion-plus budget deficit isn't significantly worsened by the nearly half of Americans who pay no federal income tax or by the lower effective rate paid by the top-earning 1 percent compared with a decade ago. Fewer than one in five of the economists think either factor is a major contributor to the deficit.

The economists also think the depth of Europe's crisis has made Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank, even more crucial to the global economy than his counterpart in the United States, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

Europe is struggling to control a debt crisis, save the euro currency and prevent the entire region from slipping into recession. If its crisis spread to the United States, another U.S. recession would be possible.

Slightly more than half the economists surveyed by the AP say that for Europe, the worst is yet to come.

"There is going to be an enormous battle between the countries that are going to have to pony up money" and those receiving it, Shapiro said.

The economists continue to give high marks to Bernanke's leadership of the Fed, which last month said it will buy $40 billion in mortgage bonds each month until the job market substantially improves. The goal is to strengthen the economy by driving down already low long-term borrowing rates.

About 55 percent of the economists think the Fed's purchases will succeed in creating a "wealth effect." That's when low rates cause investors to shift money into stocks. Stock prices rise, making people feel wealthier and causing more spending and economic growth.

Still, some economists expressed concern about the Bernanke-led Fed's aggressive bond buying. About 45 percent worry that the Fed's injection of steadily more money into the financial system will eventually ignite inflation or create dangerous bubbles in the prices of stocks or other assets.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Comment viewing options

Sort Comments

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Wouldn't surprise me if he did considering he does have the support of the Communist Party of the USA, Hugo Chazez, Vladmir Putin and Fidel Castro. As to whether I have a Commie hiding under the bed...well idk I'll have to check when I get home and I'll let you know!

Quote: "Who new will Hussein blame the last 4 years on? Probably throw Hillery under the bus yet again, she's on her way out. Or, he can blame Joe, he's not smart enough to know any better. No, NO! He can blame Bernanke, he is a W left-over! The perfect skapegoat! Ummmm I ahhh didn't ummm cause ahhhh this ahhhhh mess."

Well, GunsUp, we were doing fine when Bill Clinton left office. The country was going to hell in a handbasket when Obama took office. Seems to me that makes it obvious who is to blame.

By the way, I don't think Obama chose his middle name. Did you choose yours? Using that name for him is a cheapshot.

One need only consult Wikipedia to find out that this outcome was typical in American history:

"Midterm elections are sometimes regarded as a referendum on the sitting president's and/or incumbent party's performance.[2][3] They usually don't turn out well for the party of the president; over the past 21 midterm elections, the president's party has lost an average 30 seats in the House, and an average 4 seats in the Senate."

I knew it was true, but I wanted a quote for you. Wikipedia's sources were The Pew Center, CNN, and The Washington Post. I'm sure you will declare the latter two to be biased, but this could be confirmed in conservative sources, I'm sure, since it is a matter of historical record.

At least Donald Trump knows how to successfully run multimillion dollar businesses. The only thing Obama knows how to do is run the economy and budget into the ground! I looked underneath my bed and long behold I found Obama telling me I needed to share my wealth!